The National Aviation
Heritage Act: No Way to Celebrate the Wright Brothers

DATE:
November 18, 2003

BACKGROUND: The U. S. House of Representatives is scheduled
to vote Nov. 18 on the "National Aviation Heritage Act,"
H.R. 280. Sponsored by Rep. David Hobson (R-OH), the bill would
create a National Aviation Heritage Area encompassing several
counties in Ohio and Indiana to commemorate the nation's aviation
history. Inspired by the rapidly approaching one-hundredth anniversary
of the Wright Brothers first flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina
(which took place on December 17, 1903), the bill would also
create an Aviation Heritage Foundation to manage the Heritage
Area. The cost to the taxpayers is set at $10 million.1

TEN SECOND RESPONSE: The creation of a new National Heritage Area
will lead to more federal zoning and land-use restrictions.

THIRTY SECOND RESPONSE: Experience shows that the rights of residential
and commercial property owners are often undermined in National
Heritage Areas. In the name of preserving the historic "landscape"
of the area in question, federal officials often develop management
plans that are little more than zoning imposed by Washington
bureaucrats.2

DISCUSSION:
There are 23 National Heritage Areas in the United States, most
of them located east of the Mississippi River.3 Under the guise of promoting environmental protection,
preserving open space, and fostering historic preservation, the
National Park Service, which oversees the program, and an assortment
of interest groups have used the law to infringe upon the property
rights of those living within the boundaries of Heritage Areas.

As J. Peyton Knight of the American Policy
Center told the House Resources Committee's Subcommittee on National
Parks, Recreation and Public Lands earlier this year, "If
the Heritage Areas program is allowed to proliferate, experience
shows that it will become not only a funding albatross, as more
and more interest groups gather around the federal trough, but
also a program that quashes property rights and local economies
through restrictive federal zoning practices. The real beneficiaries
of a National Heritage Area program are conservation groups,
preservation societies, land trusts, and the National Park Service
-- essentially, organizations that are in constant pursuit of
federal dollars, land acquisition, and restrictions to development."4

Furthermore, the National Park Service
is already facing a multi-billion maintenance backlog.5 Under the best of circumstances, it will take
the Park Service years to repair the crumbling infrastructure
of the national parks and other areas under its jurisdiction.
Adding another Heritage Area to a system that is already overburdened
is simply irresponsible.

As the National Park Service itself noted
in testimony before Congress earlier this year, "some national
heritage areas have been designated without a clear indication
of the ability of the management entity to assume responsibility
for management of the area. The management entity subsequently
has operated the area without a clear financial plan for achieving
self-sufficiency without federal support. Consequently, it is
time to step back, evaluate existing areas, and develop legislative
guidelines that will shape future national heritage area designations."6

Americans should be proud of the Wright
Brothers' splendid historical achievement of 100 years ago. Creating
a new National Heritage Area is no way to celebrate man's first
flight.